DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Specification
2. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract does not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
3. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal phraseology “comprising” (line 2), and phrases which can be implied, e.g. "The present invention relates to” (line 1). Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
4. New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the current drawings are photographs/diagrams of solid gray shadings which do not transfer well in scanning.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
6. Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites “a first screw hole formed in a center thereof” (lines 4-5) which is indefinite because it is unclear what is considered to be such “a center thereof”: is it the center between the upper part and the lower part, or the center of the inclined part or of the abutment?
Claim 9 recites “the upper part of the abutment comprises a plurality of top protruding parts, which are arranged to be spaced apart from each other at an upper end portion having a horizontal surface shape and protrude upward” (lines 12-14). It is unclear whether such “upper end portion” belongs to the abutment or the plurality of protruding parts; it is also unclear whether such “horizontal surface shape” belong to the upper end portion or the plurality of the top protruding parts. Likewise, claim 12 recites “the upper end portion” which is indefinite derived from the base claim 9.
Claim 12 recites “closely seated” (line 6), which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “closely” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 13 (dependent on claim 9) introduces “an interior of the prosthesis” (claim 13 line 2), which is already recited in claim 9 (lines 16-17), creating antecedent basis ambiguity. It is unclear whether “an interior of the prosthesis” in claim 13 is the same as or different from “an interior of the prosthesis” in claim 9.
Claim 13 recites “the lower side of the second screw hole” (lines 2-3) which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. Note that the base claim 9 defines the prosthesis, not the second screw hole, having an inner lower side (claim 9 line 6).
Claim 15 recites “a distance from a center to inner surfaces” which is indefinite because of the inconsistency in a single distance vs plural inner surfaces; it is unclear which one of the plural inner surfaces defines the single distance.
Claim 15 further recites “an area of the abutment screw corresponding to positions of the top protruding parts” which is indefinite because it is unclear exactly which one of the plural “positions” that the single “area” is corresponding to.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The above list of issues of indefiniteness is not exhaustive. Applicant is required to review all claims to correct all indefiniteness issues and grammatical and idiomatic errors and conform with U.S. practice.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claims 9, 12, and 15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2022/0160474).
Regarding claim 9, Kim et al. discloses a dental implant (Figs. 1-2) comprising:
an abutment 10 comprising an upper part inserted into and fastened to a prosthesis 20/27, a lower part inserted into and fastened to a fixture 3, an inclined part (abutment 10’s middle body portion) connecting the upper part and the lower part, and a first screw hole 15 formed in a center thereof (Figs. 2-6; [0025]);
the prosthesis 20/27 comprising a coupling part 20 formed on an inner lower side, which the upper part of the abutment 10 is inserted into and fastened to, a second screw hole 23 formed on an inner upper side, and a coupling protrusion part (coupling step 25 shown in Figs. 5-7) connecting the coupling part and the second screw hole (Fig. 5; [0039] “coupling step 25 … at the boundary between coupling portion 21 and screw hole 23”); and
an abutment screw 30 inserted and fastened through the first and second screw holes 15, 23, wherein the upper part of the abutment 10 comprises a plurality of top protruding parts 13 ([0025] “elastic coupling protrusions 13”), which are arranged to be spaced apart from each other at an upper end portion having a horizontal surface shape and protrude upward (Figs. 1-3), the top protruding parts 13 comprise grooves recessed from outer sides thereof (Figs. 2-3 shows the protruding parts 13 comprising grooves forming shoulders on outer sides), and
the coupling protrusion part (coupling step 25) comprises a protrusion (i.e. the step) protruding into an interior of the prosthesis such that the protrusion is inserted into and fastened to the grooves of the top protruding parts ([0025] “coupling step 25 formed at an angle radially outward at the center therein to couple the elastic coupling protrusions 13 of the abutment 10”).
As to claim 12, Kim et al. discloses the upper part of the abutment comprises an inclined outer circumferential surface (best shown at 20 in Fig. 1), which is configured to have a width increasing from the upper end portion to a lower end portion and connects the upper end portion and the lower end portion (Fig. 1). In Fig. 5, in the prothesis, an abutment seating portion (upper surface of step/shoulder 25) in which the outer circumferential surface of the upper part of the abutment is closely seated is formed in the coupling part 25 of the prosthesis.
As to claim 15, Kim et al. shows the abutment screw 30 is inserted within the top protruding parts 13 of the abutment (see Fig. 5). Therefore, a distance from a center of the first screw hole to inner surfaces of the top protruding parts (i.e. radius of abutment’s crew hole) is greater than or equal to a radius of a corresponding area of the abutment screw 30 corresponding to positions of the top protruding parts when the abutment screw is inserted and fastened.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
10. Claims 10-11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. in view of Fischler et al. (US 2020/0015940).
Kim et al. discloses the invention as applied to claim 9 as detailed above. Kim et al. discloses the top protruding parts 13 being elastic, and thereby capable of elastically contract or expand (Figs. 1-4; [0025] “elastic coupling protrusions 13”). When the protrusion of the coupling protrusion part is inserted into and fastened to the grooves of the top protruding parts, Kim et al. shows that the top protruding parts 13 elastically expand. Therefore, as to claims 10-11 and 16, Kim et al. fails to show the top protruding parts elastically contract as recited in claim 10, and predetermined gaps are formed between the abutment and the prosthesis as recited in claims 11 and 16.
Fischler et al. discloses a dental implant comprising an abutment 1/2 having elastic top protruding parts (lamellas 232 best shown in Fig. 1). Fischler et al. Figs. 4-5 show the top protruding parts 232 elastically contract when the abutment is inserted into the prosthesis 4 ([0064] “expansion part 23 is in its unexpanded state”); wherein there is a predetermined gap formed between the grooves of the top protruding parts and at least a portion of the of the prosthesis’ coupling protrusion part (see Fischler Fig. 5 showing a gap outside of dashed line diameter 234). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim et al. by configuring the abutment’s top protruding parts to elastically contracts as taught by Fischler et al. in order to facilitate easy insertion of the abutment in the prosthesis and provide expanding biasing force for a stable snap-in connection mechanism between the abutment and the prosthesis.
11. Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. in view of Towse et al. (US 2011/0318710).
Kim et al. discloses the invention as applied to claim 9 as detailed above. As to claims 13-14, however, Kim et al. fails to disclose a screw seating portion protruding into an interior of the prosthesis as claimed.
As to claims 13-14, Towse et al. discloses a dental implant system comprising an abutment 30 inserted and fastened to an upper prosthesis element 20 (Figs. 1A-1B), wherein a screw seating portion 29 is formed in the lower side of the prosthesis element 20’s screw hole (see Fig. 3A). Towse et al. Fig. 6 shows that the abutment screw is inserted, the screw’s head presses the screw seating portion 29, thereby applying only a downward force to the prosthesis. Towse et al. shows the abutment 30 having upper end portions 37 of the top protruding parts 37 forming first horizontal region with horizontal surface (Figs. 1-2), and the prosthesis’s screw seating portion 29 comprises a second horizontal region formed as a horizontal surface (see Fig. 3A), and wherein the first horizontal region and the second horizontal region do not come into contact when the abutment screw is inserted and fastened (see Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim et al. by facilitating the abutment screw being seating on a countersunk seating portion of the prothesis as taught by Towse et al. to be an alternative suitable connection mechanism yielding successful expected implant-abutment-prothesis connection while effectively distributing the masticating forces onto the prosthesis which in turn indirectly distribute the force onto the abutment and the implant.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner HAO D. MAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3002. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:00-4:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen can be reached on (571) 270-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAO D MAI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3772
